Radical Islam is a deadly problem that cannot be ignored. At least, it will not ignore us.
It is now quite clear that neither the predominantly military approach of President Bush or the politically correct approach of President Obama have succeeded in ending the problem.
Traditional approaches — like the carrot and stick — have failed. Spectacularly.
The abject failure of all our policies related to radical Islam to date despite spending trillions of dollars and losing thousands of human lives ought to give us serious pause. It is time to figure out some alternative approaches, both strategic and tactical, to defeat this growing threat once and for all.
The next U.S. president needs to approach this problem on three different levels.
First, aid to governments of Muslim countries, and other forms of support, must be tied to the success of these governments in countering radicalism in their own countries. This can be achieved as follows: Define specific and non-negotiable parameters for radicalism, such as apostates killing; abuse of women, including beating and stoning to death for adultery; abuse of Jews including calling Jews “pigs" and “monkeys”; declaring war on non-Muslims to spread Islam after offering non-Muslims three options: subjugate to Islam, pay Jizia (a humiliating tax), or be killed; enslaving female war prisoners and taking them as sex slaves; encouraging the belief of fighting and killing Jews before the "End of Days”; and abuse of homosexuals, including killing them.
Measure the percentage of population within a given country that must be defined as radical Muslim according to the definition above. This must be tested regularly via reputable, internationally-recognized survey organizations, such as Gallup.
If the level of radicalism decreases in a given country (compared to the previous measurement), U.S. aid should increase to support this country — and vice versa.
The advantage of this approach is that it is less costly for us and will encourage the governments of many Muslim countries to direct some of their efforts toward fighting radical views that breed terrorism within their societies.
Such radical views are a major contributor to global Jihadism.
Currently, the attitude of fighting only terrorism — without fighting radicalism — is utterly ineffective as it ignores the real cause of the problem.
By employing this strategy, the U.S. would not need to get bogged down in the details of the complex theological, educational, and cognitive process of fighting radicalism. All that would be necessary would be to measure the parameters of radicalism on a regular basis and tie aid allocations directly to the results of those measurements.
Muslim countries will further benefit from this approach because diminishing radicalism will decrease terrorism — which is wreaking havoc in so many of them.
Second, the next U.S. president needs to understand that the world cannot win this war against Islamist radicals without the support of truly moderate Muslims. Attacking or disrespecting all Muslims, without being able to distinguish between those who want to implement the above violent Shariah principles, and those who want to understand and practice their religion in a peaceful way, is a mistake that could push the world inexorably into a violent, zero sum clash of civilizations.
While it is certainly fair to attack violent and discriminatory Shariah principles, it is also vitally important to recognize and support true moderate Muslims who are putting their own lives at risk in the fight to save the world from radical Islam.
Third, the next U.S. president needs to be very clear that the U.S. will neither allow nor tolerate any law (e.g. Shariah Law) that promotes values that are contrary to the U.S. constitution. For example, laws that promote slavery, or discrimination, or justifying violence against women must not be allowed in the United States. If Muslims regard the banning of such laws as “Islamophobia” this simply means that they want to promote a legal system that is clearly antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.
In this context, it is fair to say that the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, has a very balanced approach. He refuses to alienate true moderate Muslims, while at the same time roundly condemning violent Shariah teachings and flatly refusing to compromise with evil.
His powerful and clear position against Shariah is most commendable.
His own words clearly state the case: Shariah law is "180 degrees from the constitution," and “It is time that we have an open, honest dialogue about the politics of Shariah law. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Shariah is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded.”
See more at "Gary Johnson: Shariah Law is "Antithetical" to the Constitution."
His very thoughtful position and analysis of the problem carry real hope for curing the world of the disease of radical Islam.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It." Read more reports from Tawfik Hamid - Click Here Now.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.